Tuesday, January 13, 2015

I have an article in The Conversation this morning about the UK government's unconscionable exploitation of the terror attacks in Paris last week.

Copy of original unedited version below.

Je Suis Charlie

No one has seen anything like the demonstrations on the
streets of Paris on Sunday 11 January 2015 since the end of World War II.

Three deranged men murdered 17 people last week and millions
mobilised, not just in the French capital but throughout the country, united in
solidarity to express sympathy for the victims’ families and friends,
intolerance of hatred and terrorism, and publicly acknowledge the country’s
distress, defend freedom through satire and, no doubt, a whole host of other personal
reasons unique to each individual on those streets.

Political leaders were out in force too, uncomfortably
linking arms at the front of the crowd. What is it the cynics say? Never waste
a crisis or photo opportunity?

I must admit my own
response to the talking head wind-bagging on the Charlie Hebdo attacks and
other murders was less than charitable; noting the opportunist hypocrisy on the
part of political leaders calling for more mass surveillance in response to the attacks to be almost
staggering.

It is cynical, opportunistic and hypocritical but not in the
least surprising that politicians would use the Paris attacks to further their
own agendas. Neither is it surprising they would fly to Paris for the mass
commemorations. There is a good chance the likes of David Cameron would have
been roundly abused, possibly even with satiricalcartoons,
if he had declined to show up. Cameron is flying
to the US to discuss the Paris murders with President Obama later this week,
as well as plans for GCHQ to work more closely with the NSA. More closely? If the Snowden revelations are
to be believed it is hard to see how they could be any closer.

In light of the politicking/electioneering, I do have a
question or two for Mr Cameron and perhaps a suggestion or two for the
mainstream media hacks who do get access to him.

How exactly will the further expansion of mass surveillance
in the UK cure the problem of known terrorists committing murder? (If anyone
should doubt we already have mass surveillance in this country, I suggest
typing ‘Snowden’ or ‘Tempora’ or ‘OpticNerve’ ‘DRIPA’ or ‘GCHQ’ or ‘NSA’ into
your favourite search engine and perusing the results at your leisure.
Alternatively spend some time with The Guardian’s NSA
files).

The French intelligence and security services could not keep
track of the Kouachi
brothers, known extremists, to a sufficient degree to prevent the Charlie
Hebdo attacks. Likewise Amedy
Coulibaly who murdered a police officer and 4 others in a supermarket.

France has blanket electronic surveillance. France has armed
police. France even has the ID cards so beloved yet so tantalisingly eventually
out of reach of Tony Blair and his succession of home secretaries. France has
an inquisitorial justice system the purveyors of the Counter Terrorism and
Security Bill’s ‘prevent’
duty seem to be hankering after. France arguably also has a constitution
that mass surveillance, at least, offends against.

Not going to watch the 60 million 24/7? Which ones and how
many will you watch in addition to the known dangerous individuals you are already
unable to keep track of?

Which, for example, of the resources currently devoted to
extremely dangerous suspects will be diverted to watching grumpy academics
disinclined to engage in their ‘prevent’ duty, under section
21 of the Counter Terrorism & Security Bill to report students prepared
to voice non-standard views.

6.11 In our view, because of the
importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom in the context of
university education, the entire legal framework which rests on the new
"prevent" duty is not appropriate for application to universities. We
recommend that the Bill be amended to remove universities from the list of
specified authorities to which the new duty applies.

That might, should a blue moon ascend and associated flock
of pigs fly past and the government accept this recommendation, be good news
for universities and irascible academics. But where does it leave the rest of
the public servants burdened with this ill-defined, liberty-bashing, preventing
terrorism duty?

Two final questions and a suggestion.

If the Paris terrorists had been white middle class
Manchester United supporters declaring their motives to be love of Alex
Ferguson and all things Red Devilish, would political leaders have been so keen
to gather in commemoration; and condemn Man Utd supporters as extremists we
need new mass surveillance laws to guard against?

How, in the name of
all that is holy, if I may borrow a phrase from the violent religious
extremists that cause rational thinking human beings due concern, can anyone
consider it a respectable or defensible position to require everyone in public
service to spy on each other and the rest of the population?

The suggestion?

Try typing ‘Stasi’ 'NKVD' and 'KGB' into your favourite search engine and
looking through the selection of offerings it throws up. Then ask yourself why the West spend over 40 years fighting a Cold War against the Soviet Union and its allies, if all we wanted to do was construct the architecture of a surveillance state that would make those guys weep with envy...